Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 10919/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MIKHALKOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 10919/05
The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, for example, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Salman, cited above, § 97).In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject complaints about deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, particularly where deliberate lethal force is used, taking into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administer the force, but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 150, Series A no. 324, no. 45661/99).
- EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93
NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 10919/05
The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 10919/05
This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to such incidents by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see, among many other authorities, Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 10919/05
The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006). - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 10919/05
The Court notes that Article 35 of the Convention requires that the complaints made before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural methods that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).